Originalveröffentlichung in: Ikonotheka, 23 (2012), S. 69-78 IKONOTHEKA 23,2011 Ryszard Kasperowicz Institute of Art History, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin Johann Joachim Winckelmann as the Founder of the Myth of the “Religion of Art” When the question of the “religion of art”, with all its multiple dimensions and vari­ ous meanings, is compared to a chaotic constellation of objects of varying brightness against the background of the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century intellectual life, Johann Joachim Winckelmann undoubtedly shines as its brightest star. Regardless of whether he indeed merited the title of the founding father of the history of art and archaeology, the German antiquarian and connoisseur of antiquities gave a power­ ful impulse to appreciation of the act of experiencing art and beauty (which to him were quite inseparable). This impulse made it possible to confer on art the attributes of a religious experience, a fullness which encompassed the entire human life in the totality and unity of all cognitive faculties.1 These facilities included zeal, depth and intensity of experience, and finally the uncompromising, jealous exclusivity and de­ tachment all else that earlier (and later as well) were forcibly pushed into the frame of the extensible and capacious notion of “disinterestedness”. Itis obvious that the above attributes are not homogenous in nature: the totality and unity of cognitive faculties is, in reality, an ideal state, a synonym of fulfilment or happiness. Stend­ hal, an expert in this field,was most probably right in observing that beauty is only “a promise of happiness”; the force of an experience is psychological in its character and depends less on history than on aesthetics, understood, according to Baumgar­ ten, as sensitivity of the senses and imagination. The carefully guarded autonomy and purity of this experience could be seen as an argument for the autonomy of the arts (Edgar Wind’s“ aesthetic detachment”2), but also in the contrary manner: as part of the debate whether the will is excluded from it, since the desire for beauty (i.e. art) is a love, an “erotic” desire in the sense as old and noble as Plato’s Symposium. Finally, 1 Winckelmann assumed a theory of beauty rooted in neo-Platonism, and hence was able to give unifying features and quasi-mystical character to the experience of beauty. Hence he also avoid­ ed open discussion of what was the true source of a religious experience: whether it was zeal and earnestness of feeling (cf. “For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up”, Ps 69:9) or rather the cognitive reflection on divine matters; on this question, in the complex context of piety, see E. Muller, Asthetische Religiositat und Kunstreligion in den Philosophien von der Aufkliirung bis zum Ausgangdes deutschen Idealismus, Berlin, 2004, pp. 45-63. See also: E.H. Gombrich, Kunst und Fortschritt. Wirkung und Wandlung einer Idee, 2nd ed., Cologne, 1987, pp. 32-34. 2 See E. Wind, Art and Anarchy. The Reith Lectures 1960, London, 1963, chapters 2 and 3. Ryszard Kasperowicz it is worth observing that none of these categories clearly delineate the boundaries of a religious and artistic experience. The difficulty does not lie in separating these two spheres of experience and breaking with the Enlightenment and Romantic notion of the “refigion of art”. It is, of course, possible to surround the religious experience with a palisade of a “numinotic experience” - something that exceeds a human being absolutely, in which he will look for the ultimate anchor for himself and the universe - and from behind that palisade to resist the temptations of the other forms of experience that would happily assume the nobility and fullness of a religious experience and find a place in a temple’sady ­ tum. This fear of dethronement is not, however, the fear of a historian. The notion of the “religion of art”, hotly contested during the period in question, is now a historical one; it no longer arouses such controversy, and it seems that it was once dreaded due not to a fear of appropriation, but a fear of the blurring of boundaries and the usurp­ ing pretences of art. It is, however, obvious that the matters may have taken quite a different course. Winckelmann’s message turned out to be at least ambiguous. Itwould be difficult to assume that his aim was, outright and foremost, to provide, hidden behind the apology of artistic beauty, a critique of religion from the Enlightenment point of view. He would then have to be viewed as the creator of an aesthetic quasi-religion (there would be, indeed, few parallels to a traditional religion in its contents). Winckel­ mann’s clear and meaningful criticism of religious institutions and the behaviour that they force the believers to assume is found mainly in his construction of history and in his justification of the indisputable, in his opinion, artistic, intellectual and moral perfection of the Greeks - which, in effect, led to the criticism of the culture of his own times. If the “religion of art” is by definition a challenge to the traditional forms of religion, in Winckelmann’s case the battlefield is culture. This is precisely how this was viewed by his contemporaries. When Hegel said that Winckelmann had liberated art from the tyranny of “den Gesichtspunkten gemeiner Zwecke und blofien Naturnachahmung”, giving human spirit “ein neues Organ und ganz neue Betrachtungsweisen”3 to experience art, he was clearly aware of the role of the author of Reflections on the Painting and Sculpture of the Greeks. Yet Hegel saw him from the distance of nearly half a century, from which Winckelmann’s biography was no longer of importance; his life seemed very different to Heynse or Goethe, who both, if not in equal measure, contributed to the emergence of his symbolic image and the myth conducive to the popularisation of Winckelmann’s views. 3 G.W.F. Hegel, Asthetik. Nach der zweiten Ausgabe Heinrich Gustav Hothos (1842) redigiert und tnit einem ausfohrlichen Register versehen von Friedrich Bassenge, Berlin and Weimar, 1976, p. 71: “Ohnehin war fruher schon Winckelmann durch die Anschauung der Ideale der Alten in einer Weide begeistert, durch welche er einen neuen Sinn for die Kunstbetrachtung aufgetan, sie den Gesichtspunkten gemeiner Zwecke und bloBen Naturnachahmung entris- sen und in den Kunstwerken und der Kunstgeschichte die Kunstidee zu linden machtig auf- gefordert hat. Denn Winckelmann ist als einer der Menschen anzusehen, welche im Felde der Kunst for den Geist ein neues Organ und ganz neue Betrachtungsweisen zu erschliefien wuBten”. 70 Johann Joachim Winckelmann as the Founder... At this point the image of Winckelmann seems to drift out of focus; his life seems inseparably intertwined with his vision of the ancient Hellas, his aims become reality almost in the natural course of things; Winckelmann’s biography appears to be a mis­ sion fulfilled,not only in the dimension of an individual existence. There is no place for coincidence or doubt; finally, in the interpretation of Walter Pater, approximately sixty years after Goethe’s famous essay of 1805, Winckelmann turns into the last man of the Renaissance. Yet thecomplexity of the figure of Winckelmann lies not only in his artificial, mythologised image, created much later to be the keystone to the crucial myth of a “beautiful man”, a “beautiful soul”, in a manifold manner related to the concept of the “religion of art”. To himself, the nearly-religious veneration of ancient art and Raphael was a justification and a fulfilment of an elected path. His letters, a text equal in importance to Rousseau’s Confessions when it comes to revealing the spiritual anxi­ eties of a man living in the latter half of the eighteenth century, present his life from a religious perspective. In his biography, the vision of the religion of art is prepared, preceded and legitimated by the conviction of his divine calling. The most touching evidence of that conviction is found in his letter, dated 6th Jan­ uary 1753, to Georg Berendis. Winckelmann was trying to convince his friend that his decision to leave for Rome, linked with the unavoidable condition of converting to Catholicism, could be treated neither as apostasy, nor as volatility of character or longing for a change, “Liebe zur Veranderung”. Rejecting accusations, he presented his decision, from the typical perspective of an Enlightenment (auto)biography, as perfectionist self-fulfilment and challenge to the world; religious belief was viewed not as an obstacle, but as a measure of effort. Winckelmann flawlessly adjusted the modern model of individual realisation to the traditional Providentialist vision. His point of departure was the classical notion of being born in the wrong place and time - in effect, Winckelmann professed it was his misfortune to be born in a lace where he was unable to follow his inclinations or to shape his own personality himself. Germany, which he later called “Land der Marteley”, he associated mostly with the poverty and destitution he had to overcome on his way to education and knowledge. To him, to tread the path to knowledge invariably meant to reject every­ thing that was commonplace, accepted and everyday, because it was a path toward self-ennoblement. To a man intent on reaching the highest levels possible, “auf hochstezu trei- ben”, and desirous of devoting himself to the study of the ancients, Rome must have seemed a promised land; no price was too high to be worth paying. His breakthrough decision to convert to Catholicism was described by Winckelmann as a fight, an argu­ ment between the nearly-allegorical figures of the Muses and the “Eusebias” (piety was also understood as fidelity). Contrary to his own reason, the protectresses of the arts triumphed, of course; yet their triumph was only apparent, since it is the love of science which allowed a man to aim higher, above the “etliche theatralische Gauke- leien”.